An individual’s characteristics as a source of management ...
Transcript of An individual’s characteristics as a source of management ...
An individual’s characteristics as a source of management innovation
Yomeshka Moodley
Student number: 439285
A research project submitted to the Gordon Institute of Business Science,
University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
postgraduate degree of Masters of Business Administration
14 January 2015
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
i
ABSTRACT
Due to the ever-changing environment that businesses operate in, there is a
need to manage people differently to equip firms to avoid extinction. This need
means that firms must identify and leverage sources management innovation.
This research study investigated management innovation on an individual level
by examining eight predetermined characteristics of an individual (age, total
employment tenure, organisational tenure, functional role, innovation
momentum, management training, educational level and gender) as possible
factors that could predispose him/her to being a source of management
innovation. Data was collected using nonprobability sampling and employed a
self-administered survey. The findings indicated that all factors with the
exception of management training are associated with an individual being a
source of management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
ii
KEYWORDS
Innovation, management, management innovation, knowledge source
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
iii
DECLARATION
I declare that this research project is my own work. It is submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of
Pretoria. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any
other University. I further declare that I have obtained the necessary
authorisation and consent to carry out this research.
Yomeshka Moodley
Date: 14 January 2015
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My MBA journey has been one of personal discovery and growth. For this
personal evolution, I am eternally grateful to many people:
To my husband Seth, thank you for supporting my decision to leave my
employment to embark on this full-time qualification. You have provided
constant encouragement through my MBA challenges and have patiently dealt
with my absence for a year. I know it has not been easy for you. I could not
have made it through my MBA year without you and I look forward to returning
home and making up for lost time.
To my parents, Sathia and Viloscheeni Moodley, thank you for all the sacrifices
you made to provide a solid educational foundation in my schooling and
undergraduate years. Without you this degree would not be possible.
I am grateful to Yusavia Moodley, Shaun Naidoo and Dharishan Padiachy, for
providing me with a home-away-from-home during my MBA studies.
My gratitude is extended to my supervisor, Matthew Birtch, for his guidance and
advice in both my research and my career.
To Shirlene Smits and Yadhina Pillay, thank you for the hard work you have put
into making my MBA journey a smooth and unforgettably enjoyable one.
Lastly, I thank the talented individuals of the full-time MBA class of 2014/2015
for your companionship as well as emotional and intellectual support.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... I KEYWORDS ....................................................................................................... II DECLARATION ................................................................................................. III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... VIII LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. X CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ................. 1 1.1 Research title .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research problem ...................................................................................... 1
1.3 Research scope .......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research objectives ................................................................................... 3
1.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 4 2.1 Defining the boundaries of management innovation .................................. 4
2.1.1 Management ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Innovation .................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Management innovation .............................................................................. 7
2.2 The gap in the management innovation literature ...................................... 8 2.2.1 Management innovation sources ................................................................ 9
2.3 Individual characteristics as sources of management innovation ............. 11 2.3.1 Age as a source of management innovation ............................................. 12 2.3.2 Total tenure as a source of management innovation ................................ 16 2.3.3 Organisational tenure as a source of management innovation ................. 17 2.3.4 Innovation momentum as a source of management innovation ................ 19 2.3.5 Management training as a source of management innovation ................. 20 2.3.6 Educational level as a source of management innovation ........................ 21 2.3.7 Functional role as a source of management innovation ............................ 22 2.3.8 Gender as a source of management innovation ....................................... 22
2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESES ......................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................... 26 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 26
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
vi
4.2 Research philosophy ................................................................................ 26
4.3 Research approach .................................................................................. 27
4.4 Research strategy ..................................................................................... 27
4.5 Research design ....................................................................................... 28
4.6 Sampling design ....................................................................................... 28 4.6.1 Population definition .................................................................................. 29 4.6.2 Sample unit definition ................................................................................ 29 4.6.3 Sample size ............................................................................................... 29
4.7 Data collection .......................................................................................... 29
4.7.1 Data collection instrument ......................................................................... 29 4.7.2 Data gathering ........................................................................................... 30
4.8 Data analysis techniques .......................................................................... 31 4.8.1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ..................................................................... 31 4.8.2 Hypothesis testing ..................................................................................... 31
4.9 Limitations of the research methodology .................................................. 32
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS ................................................................................ 33 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 33
5.2 Respondent characteristics ...................................................................... 33 5.2.1 Age of respondents ................................................................................... 33 5.2.2 Gender of respondents ............................................................................. 34 5.2.3 Total working tenure of respondents ......................................................... 35 5.2.4 Educational level of respondents .............................................................. 36 5.2.5 Functional role of respondents .................................................................. 37 5.2.6 Respondents who have been a source of management innovation ......... 38 5.2.7 Management innovation generated after management training ................ 39
5.3 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................. 39
5.4 Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................. 42
5.5 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................. 43
5.6 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................. 46
5.7 Hypothesis 5 ............................................................................................. 47
5.8 Hypothesis 6 ............................................................................................. 50
5.9 Hypothesis 7 ............................................................................................. 52
5.10 Hypothesis 8 ........................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................................... 55
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
vii
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 55
6.2 Hypothesis 1: An individual’s age is associated with him/her being a
source of management innovation .................................................................... 55
6.3 Hypothesis 2: An individual’s total employment tenure is associated with
him/her being a source of management innovation. ......................................... 58
6.4 Hypothesis 3: An individual’s organisational tenure is associated with
him/her being a source of management innovation. ......................................... 59
6.5 Hypothesis 4: An individual’s innovation momentum is associated with
he/she being a source of management innovation ............................................ 61
6.6 Hypothesis 5: An individual’s management training is associated with
him/her being a source of management innovation .......................................... 62
6.7 Hypothesis 6: An individual’s educational level is associated with he/she
being a source of management innovation ....................................................... 63
6.8 Hypothesis 7: An individual’s functional role is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation ....................................................... 64
6.9 Hypothesis 8: An individual’s gender is associated with he/she being a
source of management innovation .................................................................... 65
6.10 Concerns with the dataset ...................................................................... 65
6.11 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 65
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 67 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 67
7.2 Summary of findings ................................................................................. 67
7.3 Academic implications .............................................................................. 68
7.4 Recommendations for business ............................................................... 69
7.5 Limitations of the study ............................................................................. 69
7.6 Suggestions for future research ................................................................ 70
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 71 Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................ 80
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual model of sources of management innovation (Mol &
Birkinshaw, 2009) .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 2: Source incorporated into the management innovation process
(Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006) .................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Factors to be tested as sources of management innovation .............. 12
Figure 4: Research Methodology Honeycomb (Wilson, 2014, p.8) ................... 26
Figure 5: Causal relationship being tested in hypotheses ................................. 28
Figure 6: Bar chart of age ranges of the respondents ....................................... 34
Figure 7: Pie chart of gender of respondents .................................................... 35
Figure 8: Bar chart of total employment tenure of respondents ........................ 36
Figure 9: Pie chart of educational level of respondents .................................... 37
Figure 10: Pie chart of the functional roles of respondents in the workplace .... 38
Figure 11: Pie chart of respondents who have/ have not been a source of
management innovation .................................................................................... 38
Figure 12: Pie chart of management innovations rpoduced with and without
management training ......................................................................................... 39
Figure 13: Scatter plot of age vs. innovative idea number ................................ 40
Figure 14: Bar chart of age as a source of management innovation ................. 41
Figure 15: Bar chart of respondent’s agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by total tenure. ........................................................... 43
Figure 16: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to organisational tenure being
a source of management innovation. ................................................................ 45
Figure 17: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to innovation
momentum as a source of management innovation ......................................... 47
Figure 18: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by training .................................................................. 49
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
ix
Figure 19: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to training as a source of
management training ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 20: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by educational level. .................................................. 52
Figure 21: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by functional role. ....................................................... 53
Figure 22: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by gender. .................................................................. 54
Figure 23: Model summarising findings ............................................................. 66
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 1 ..................................... 40
Table 2: Chi squared test results for age as a determinant of one's attitude
toward age, organisational tenure, innovation momentum and training as
sources of innovation ........................................................................................ 42
Table 3: Summary of Chi squared test results for hypothesis 2 ........................ 43
Table 4: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 3 ..................................... 44
Table 5: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 4 ..................................... 46
Table 6: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 5 ....................................... 48
Table 7: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 6 ....................................... 51
Table 8: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 7 ....................................... 53
Table 9: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 8 ....................................... 54
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.1 Research title
An individual’s characteristics as a source of management innovation.
1.2 Research problem
Henri Fayol’s research constituted one of the earliest formal bodies of literature
concerning management and his research has formed the basis of many
investigations concerning management theory. Fayol stated the following
regarding the principles he observed that govern management:
“For preference I shall adopt the term principles whilst dissociating it from
any suggestion of rigidity, for there is nothing rigid or absolute in
management affairs, it is all a question of proportion. Seldom do we have
to apply the same principle twice in identical conditions; allowance must
be made for different and changing circumstances…” (Fayol, as cited in
Wren & Bedeian, 1994, p.216)
The requirement for management change practices has been recognised by
various management scholars for a considerable length of time. However, this
discussion has recently received some formal recognition and study, being
termed management innovation. Hamel (2009) explained that when modern
day management was first created at the beginning of the industrial revolution,
it was incorporated to ensure that employees completed repetitive tasks
efficiently and competently so that the complex goods they produced were done
efficiently and on a large scale. This required bureaucracy and a hierarchy that
forced procedures and rules down to the lower rungs of the enterprise.
However, the current nature of challenges faced by firms is different from those
of the industrial era; the business environment is rapidly changing, which in turn
requires new methods of management for firms to thrive.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
2
Porter (1990) motivated that at the heart of competitive advantage is innovation.
Innovation includes new methods of firm management. Hamel (2006) and
Teece (2010) explained that management innovation yields more of a
competitive advantage for firms than any other kind of innovation. A few
examples of this competitive advantage gained from management innovation
were initially listed by Hamel (2006):
• DuPont benefitted from standardising a way for comparing the
performance of its many products departments.
• Toyota’s success is largely due to the autonomy that it has afforded its
employees in problem solving in the workplace.
• Whole Foods Market employees are managed differently from those
employed at other grocery stores, as they are given autonomy and utilise
unique management practices. This is one of the reasons Whole Foods
Market has grown at a rate that cannot be matched by other grocery
chain in the United States.
Management innovation therefore, provides tools for firms to create methods
that allow employees to cope with the changing business environment because
dated management practices do not address these new challenges.
Management innovation is therefore essential for the survival of a business.
Given that management innovation is beneficial to business, it is important to
determine where this commodity can be sourced. Despite the importance of
management innovation, only one study has been found that attempted to
identify sources of management innovation. This study was conducted by Mol
and Birkinshaw (2009) and was largely based on firm level sources of
management innovation.
The research presented in this research report investigates sources of
management innovation on an individual level. Understanding the
characteristics of an individual that can be classified as sources of management
innovation will help employers identify individuals who can assist with creating
new ways of coordinating activities in the firm.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
3
1.3 Research scope
This research report investigates management innovation on an individual level
as it concentrates on factors specific to a particular person. These factors are
examined to determine the characteristics that are sources in the management
innovation process. The research report does not address these characteristics’
effects on the entire implementation process. The sample consisted primarily of
South African individuals who have operated mostly in the South African
working environment. This study also sought to examine these factors at the
point in time at which the survey was administered.
1.4 Research objectives
This intent of the researcher is to determine whether eight predetermined
characteristics of an individual (age, total tenure, organisational tenure,
innovation momentum, management training, educational level, functional role
and gender) are sources of management innovation.
1.5 Conclusion
This report builds an argument motivating the need for this research in Chapter
2 and explains how the research was conducted in Chapter 4. The results from
the data collection process are presented in Chapter 5 and discussed with
reference to the foundational literature. The report concludes by proposing
recommendations, describing the limitations of this research as well as listing
suggestions for further study.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter develops an argument that motivates the need for this study by
using the foundation of academic literature that was available to the researcher.
The literature review commences with defining the boundaries of the term
management innovation and clarifies the importance of the subject. The gap in
the available academic literature on management innovation and its sources is
then discussed.
The chapter proceeds to motivate the reasons for the investigation of the eight
predetermined characteristics of an individual (age, total employment tenure,
organisational tenure, functional role, innovation momentum, management
training, educational level and gender) in terms of management innovation and
illustrates that, as far as the researcher has found, seven of these factors have
not been previously investigated as sources of management innovation.
2.1 Defining the boundaries of management innovation
The term management innovation is explored in this section to determine the
meaning and importance thereof.
2.1.1 Management
In his seminal work, Henri Fayol made the following statement: “a leader who is
a good administrator but technically mediocre is generally much more useful to
the enterprise than if he were a brilliant technician but a mediocre administrator”
(Fayol, as cited in Wren & Bedeian, 1994, p.214).
Management in the business setting is of such importance to scholars and
business that bodies of literature have been written on the subject and
academic schools established to teach this administrative skill. Established
management scholars Drucker (1993) and Fayol (1916), for example, argued
that a firm’s success is more dependent on its managerial capability than its
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
5
technical capability as without good management, no fruits can be gained from
technological ability.
To determine the innovation that is referred to in this research report, an
understanding of the principles and activities that bind management is required.
The researcher found that various sources have considered management as
the process of organising and co-ordinating activities and people in order to
achieve defined common objectives (Baye & Prince, 2014; Koontz, 1961;
Luthra, 2014). Therefore, the purposes that emerged for management in
scholarly articles include organisation, co-ordination and alignment of effort
towards a common goal (Drucker, 1993; Fayol, 1916; Hamel, 2006). If the
alignment of effort is considered a management objective, literature on
management can be traced as far back as 1776 with Adam Smith’s notion of
the division of labour for efficiency in achieving a common goal, which
illustrated the importance of the subject, as the alignment of effort is so
fundamental to completing tasks to support humankind.
Many scholars have considered management to be a people-centric function
designed to build relationships with stakeholders, including employees and
communities. As such, many management scholars have researched people
centricity and relationships as the core of the management role (Doh & Smith,
2011; Martin & Schmidt, 2010; Vaiman, Scullion & Collings, 2012).
Other secondary management tasks included motivating, acquiring and
applying knowledge, attaining and distributing resources and balancing the
demands of external constituencies (Farndale, Pai, Sparrow, & Scullion, 2014;
Fayol, 1916; Hamel, 2006). It is then evident that management incorporates
different tasks for different scholars. However, the vital role of management has
been largely consistent in the literature that has been investigated.
When the literature concerning management is considered, management can
be constrained to all administrative activities applied toward organising and
coordinating the purpose of reaching the end goal of the firm.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
6
2.1.2 Innovation
In an ever-changing world and economy, innovation is a crucial source for
competitive advantage (Feigenbaum & Feigenbaum, 2005; Porter, 1990).
Schumpeter’s (1934) influential work laid the foundation for vast array of
literature on the subject of innovation. He emphasised the importance of
“carrying out new combinations” in order to achieve economic development.
The phrase carrying out new combinations encapsulates the idea of innovation
as it implies doing things differently from the past (Almeida, Hohberger &
Parada, 2011; Drucker; 2013, Hamel 2006; Porter, 1990; Prahalad, 2012). The
Oxford Dictionaries (2014) concurred with this early definition, describing
innovate as the ability to “make changes in something established especially by
introducing new ideas, methods or products”.
The word innovation is usually used to refer to new technology, however;
Schumpeter (1934) classified five types of innovation that includes “new ways
to organise a business”.
Because innovation has been widely acknowledged as a means for
improvement or competitive advantage, it has attracted a large amount of
attention in both the academic and business spheres. Various fields including
economics, management, academics, law, sociology and medicine have used
innovation as a means for improvement or to gain a competitive advantage
(Barberá-Tomás & Consoli, 2012; Pistor, 2013; Schmidpeter, 2013).
An important departure from innovation literature is the idea of the extent of
newness. Damapour and Aravind (2012) explained that innovation is either
radical or adaptive. The former means the introduction of something completely
new to state-of-the-art whilst the latter refers to the exploitation of existing ideas
that are new to the organisation but not new to state-of–the-art. Conversely,
Shenkar (2010) did not consider the copying of existing ideas (and making
incremental changes) as innovation. This research report, however, has
considered any new idea introduced into a firm, whether copied or not, as an
innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
7
Scholars have also examined innovation on different levels, which include
individual, organisational and national (Castellacci & Natera, 2013; Ryan &
Tipu, 2013).
The depth and breadth of this research on innovation illustrates the importance
and relevance of innovation in the realms of academia and business. This study
investigates management innovation on an individual level.
2.1.3 Management innovation
Hamel (2006) defined management innovation as “a marked departure from
traditional management principles, processes, and practices or a departure
from customary organisational forms that significantly alters the way the work of
management is performed” (p.3). This implies the innovation of any practice in
the firm, which is not directly related to the tangible product for sale to the
consumer. Mol and Birkinshaw’s (2009) definition of management innovation is
“the introduction of management practices new to the firm and intended to
enhance firm performance” (p.1).
Modern day management of business developed from the industrial revolution
of the early twentieth century, when large corporations established themselves.
Businesses became so large that they constituted independent social
institutions, which required processes that would make achieving goals easier
(Drucker, 1993). However, the way in which corporations are currently
structured and how employees perform work has fundamentally changed since
the industrial revolution. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the way in which
processes and people must be organised and coordinated (managed) to
achieve firms’ goals should be fundamentally different in the present day
(Drucker, 1993; Hamel, 2006).
There are various types of innovation relevant to business, but management
innovation differs from other kinds of innovation, which warrants it being studied
as a separate entity. Birkinshaw and Mol (2006) explained that management
innovation differs from technological innovation in primarily two ways; the first
difference is that external agents of change such as consultants, academics
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
8
and ex-employees play a more pronounced role in management innovation
than in other types of innovation; the second is that management innovation
takes place and is implemented at a considerably slower pace than
technological innovation because the former is tacit in nature, unlike a physical
product that is generally much easier to replicate.
As with innovation, there is a divergence in literature regarding the extent of
newness the term refers to. Some scholars considered management innovation
as a completely new to state-of-the-art manner of managing (Chandler, 1962)
whilst others regarded that it constitutes management practices that are not
necessarily brand new, but are new to the firm (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009; Young,
Charns & Shortell, 2001).
In this research report management innovation is defined as the introduction of
management practices that are new to the firm with the intention of enhancing
firm performance. The following roles were considered as constituting the
practices of management (Hamel, 2006, p.3):
• Motivating and aligning effort
• Coordinating and controlling activities
• Accumulating and allocating resources
• Acquiring and applying knowledge
• Building and nurturing relationships
• Identifying and developing talent
• Understanding and balancing the demands of outside constituencies
2.2 The gap in the management innovation literature
Despite the importance of management innovation, the subject is poorly
understood and little work has been done to determine the origins and
generative processes of management innovation (Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006; Wu,
2010). While there has been a vast amount of work done on various areas of
technological innovation, a comparatively limited number of studies are present
concerning management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
9
Filling the knowledge gap on management innovation is important because it
has been argued that management innovation is important in providing firms
with a competitive advantage (Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009;
Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda, 2012). Hamel (2006) and Teece
(2010) explained that management innovation yields more of a competitive
advantage for firms than any other kind of innovation. Feigenbaum and
Feigenbaum (2005) and Hamel (2006) explained that sustainability of business
success is a core result of management innovation.
Whilst academic research on management innovation is still in its infancy, some
aspects of management innovation have been researched by scholars, for
example, the effect of management innovation on firm performance (Walker,
Damampour & Devece, 2010), the effect of competition and firm size on
management innovation (Damanpour, 2010) and the result of different contexts
on management innovation has been attended to by Luk, Yau, Sin, Tse, Chow
and Lee (2008).
Many scholars have researched the implementation of management innovation
(Abrahamson, 1991; Birkinshaw & Mol, 2009; Khanagha, Volberda & Sidhu,
2013; Walker et al., 2010; Wu, 2010). Leadership behaviour has subsequently
been studied as a root of management innovation (Vaccaro et al., 2012).
Manfreda, Kovacic, Stemberger and Trkman (2014) investigated absorptive
capacity as a prerequisite (but not a source) for management innovation.
Given the gap in literature on management innovation and the importance
thereof, it is concluded that there is a need for further research on the topic.
2.2.1 Management innovation sources
When the argument that management innovation is a pertinent factor to
attaining a competitive advantage is considered, it is imperative to determine
where an organisation can obtain this commodity.
According to the researcher’s examination of published works, Mol and
Birkinshaw (2009) have conducted the most comprehensive study of the
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
10
sources of management innovation to date. These authors have investigated
management innovation sources on an organisational level. They found that the
effect of these sources is dependent on the firm’s context (Figure 1). Internal
and professional networks, customers, competitors as well as consultants were
found to be sources of management innovation.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of sources of management innovation (Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009)
Whilst firm level sources of management innovation have been investigated, the
researcher did not acquire any literature that has investigated an individual
employee’s characteristics as a source of management innovation therefore this
research report aimed to do so.
Various studies on management innovation tend to merge the source of
innovation together with the adoption thereof (Figure 2) (Birkinshaw & Mol,
2006; Ng & Feldman, 2013). However, Damanpour and Wischnevsky (2006)
argued that the generative process of innovation is different from the
implementation and these therefore ought to be studied as separate entities.
This study therefore investigates only the source of management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
11
Figure 2: Source incorporated into the management innovation process (Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006)
2.3 Individual characteristics as sources of management innovation
Determining whether an individual’s characteristics are a source of
management innovation is useful because it will help employers of firms that
are in need of management innovation to determine which candidates are ideal
for their organisation. The literature reviewed by the researcher has resulted in
the classification of eight characteristics of an individual that can be considered
as factors that can be tested as possible sources of management innovation.
These characteristics are an individual’s age, total employment tenure,
organisational tenure, innovation momentum, management training, educational
level, functional role and gender (Figure 3). None of these characteristics,
except the educational level, have been investigated as sources of
management innovation; therefore these have been studied in this particular
research report. Inasmuch, Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) investigated the
individual’s educational level as a source of management innovation using a
sample from the United Kingdom.
The literature research and motivation for the delineation of these factors are
discussed in the remainder of this chapter.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
12
Figure 3: Factors to be tested as sources of management innovation
The individual characteristics of age, total employment tenure, organisational
tenure, innovation momentum, management training and educational level are
related as they are influenced by past experience that forms a knowledge base
from which an individual can draw for creating innovations.
2.3.1 Age as a source of management innovation
Knowledge of the relationship between one’s age and their propensity to be a
source of management innovation is important for business because it provides
employers an idea of which employees can be utilised to or recruited for
changing the manner in which the firm is organised. The relationship is
important for academia because it will fill a gap for business and human capital
disciplines.
There exists no literature known to the author that describes the relationship
between the age of an individual and the likelihood of that individual being a
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
13
source of management innovation. There is, however, a vast literature base
documenting the relationship between age and various elements of innovation
that has been utilised as a basis for motiving why age should be investigated as
a source of management innovation.
Camelo-Ordaz, Fernendez-Alles, Ruiz-Navarro and Souza-Ginel (2012) argued
that an individual’s age influences their perspective and their strategic choices.
This can be translated into possible age-dependent perspectives on
management innovation.
There are opposing bodies of literature regarding the relationship between age
and innovation. Young et al. (2001) found that the likelihood of top managers to
adopt a new form of quality management in the healthcare setting is negatively
associated with age, whilst Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2011) concurred with this
relationship that innovative activity is negatively associated with age. Ng and
Feldman (2013) however found that age was not negatively related
tobehaviour. These authors did not study source in isolation but integrated
sourcing with adoption in their respective investigations.
2.3.1.1 Age and openness to change
It is important to explore the relationship of openness to change with age, as
change is the foundation for innovation, which is in turn necessary for
management innovation. As discussed earlier, innovation implies doing
something different from the past, therefore if individuals are not comfortable
with doing things differently or being exposed to new things brought about by
change it can be logically concluded that they are less likely to innovate.
Horn and Cattell (1967) explained that crystallised intelligence (which is the
ability to access long-term memory for the use of skills and knowledge) is
higher in older adults than in younger adults whilst fluid intelligence (which is
the ability to think logically and solve new problems) is higher in younger adults.
This theory supports the idea that younger adults or younger employees are
better equipped for change as they have a higher capacity to function in new
situations and with novel ideas. However, Hall and Mirvis (1996) argued that
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
14
there is no physiological evidence that proves that aging is related to personal
adaptability or resistance to change.
There also exists a divergence in the industrial psychology literature regarding
the relationship between age and the aversion to change. Kunze, Böhm and
Bruch (2011) found that employee age is negatively related to resistance to
change. The researchers based their definition of resistance to change on the
following four dimensions:
• Routine seeking to the extent to which the employee aims for routine and
stable environments.
• Emotional reaction to imposed change, which reflects the degree to
which employees perceive change as stressful.
• Short-term focus, which describes the extent to which employees focus
on the short-term challenges of change rather than the long-term
benefits thereof.
• Cognitive rigidity.
Contrary to the findings of Kunze et al. (2012), other researchers have found
that older employees are indeed more resistant to change (Chiu, Chan, Snape
& Redman, 2001).
Although no studies regarding the relationship between age and openness to
management innovation (change) have been found by the author, a large body
of work has been written on the relationship between age and openness to
change in the technological innovation space. This body of work is significant as
it could indicate factors affecting the propensity to change that are shared with
the management innovation field. Various researchers have studied the ability
of older people to adopt new technology, which involves change and the
acceptance of a new concept. Researchers have found that older employees
are perceived as less persistent than their younger counterparts in adopting,
implementing and adapting to new technologies (Davis & Songer, 2009; Morris
& Venkatesh, 2000; Mostafa & El-Masry, 2008; Young et al., 2001). Conversely,
Quasi and Thalukder (2011) found no significant relationship between a
worker’s age and his attitude towards accepting technological innovations, nor
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
15
did these specific researchers find any significant relationship between a
worker’s age and their usage of technological innovation.
2.3.1.2 Age and creativity
Ng and Feldman (2010) explained that creativity is a critical component in a
firm’s ability to adapt to a changing business environment. Creativity results in
the generation of new ideas for the firm; therefore it is a building block for
innovation.
The researcher found no consistency in the literature regarding the relationship
with age and propensity for creativity. Carmelo-Ordaz et al. (2011) explained
that an individual’s cognitive ability diminishes with age, thereby inhibiting their
innovativeness and creativity. It follows from this that the ability for an individual
to create new ideas about how to manage a firm will diminish with age.
Alternatively, various authors emphasise the unfair stereotype that older
employees are less likely to be inventive than older ones (Quazi & Thalukder,
2011). Eder and Sawyer (2007) found in their meta-analysis on the relationship
between age and creativity that the two are not related. Timmerman (2010)
explained that as people age, their abilities like memorising and reaction time
which are driven by the left brain diminish, whilst abilities driven by the right
brain increase. These right brain abilities include creativity and emotion. It can
therefore be deduced from Timmerman’s study that older people are more
creative in the workplace and more likely to create management innovations.
Some researchers have found that in both self- and supervisor-assessments of
employees, age was not significantly related to employee creativity (Binnewies,
Ohly & Niessen, 2008; Ng & Feldman, 2013).
2.3.1.3 Age associated with organisational tenure, training and
management innovation momentum as sources of management
innovation
It is beneficial to determine whether individuals of different ages are differently
predisposed to organisational tenure, training and management innovation as
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
16
sources of management innovation because it provides an indication of the
times in a person’s lifecycle that they are most predisposed to innovating, if at
all. According to the researcher’s review of published works there exists no
study on the relationship between:
• age and organisational tenure as a source of management innovation,
• age and training as a source of management innovation, and
• age and management innovation momentum as a source of
management innovation.
There are different views regarding differences in age groups in the workplace.
One school of thought supports the idea that each generation has experienced
shared events that shape the way each of these groups behave (Tolbize, 2008;
Zemke, Raines & Filipczak, 2000), whilst another view proposes that all
individuals experience a similar cycle through their career, regardless of their
particular generation (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998).
Establishing these relationships helps businesses to determine when
individuals may be at their management innovative peak and are then able to
leverage from these cycles. This research report sought to investigate these
relationships.
2.3.2 Total tenure as a source of management innovation
A search of published literature did not yield any results that describe the
relationship between an individual’s total employment tenure and their
propensity to being a source of management innovation. If a relationship does
exist, it is significant for business, as firms who wish to change the way in which
they are being managed should employ candidates whose tenure predisposes
them to being a source of new management styles. Ng and Feldman (2013)
explained that older individuals (with more total working experience) have
gained more knowledge that can be used to be more productive because they
were exposed to coping in the workplace for longer. This research report
intended to fill the gap in academia by determining whether knowledge with
experience can be extended to generating management innovations.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
17
2.3.3 Organisational tenure as a source of management innovation
Organisational tenure refers to the period of time that an employee has been
employed by a firm. As far as the researcher has found, there has been no
published research to determine the relationship between organisational tenure
and propensity for management innovation. However, research has been
conducted on organisational tenure in relation to elements of change, routine
and innovation, which form a foundation for management innovation.
Opposing ideas have been found regarding the relationship between
organisational tenure and change. Khanangha et al. (2013) found that the
longer people work in an organisation, the more comfortable they become with
the old routines and norms of the organisation and the less open they are to
challenging these old ways of operating. Conversely, some scholars have found
that routine promotes efficiency that results in high innovativeness due to
cognitive capacity that has been freed (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011;
Sørensen & Stuart, 2000).
The relationship between organisational tenure and its relationship to
technological innovation is worth attention because it could illuminate the
shared aspects regarding propensity to change with employment in a single
firm. Scholars have affirmed that organisational tenure is negatively associated
with (technological) innovative behaviour and positively associated with
resistance to change (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2014; Entrialgo, 2002; Kor, 2006).
The opposing ideas of innovation and organisational tenure, as well as the gap
in research on management innovation and organisational tenure warrant the
investigation being conducted in this report.
2.3.3.1 Familiarity with organisational culture and firm goals
Ng and Feldman (2010) illustrated that organisational tenure has a positive
relationship with creativity. The longer one is employed in a firm, the more he or
she is exposed to the culture and goals of that firm and it can therefore logically
be deduced that with tenure his/her creative efforts can be aligned more
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
18
effectively with these goals and cultural norms. However this relationship has
not been empirically tested, neither has it been tested in terms of management
innovation. This study therefore sought to fill the gap in literature by testing this
assumption.
2.3.3.2 Familiarity with firm procedures and management innovation
The researcher’s examination of published works did not uncover literature on
the relationship between an individual’s familiarity with a firm’s procedures and
the propensity for him/her to be a source of management innovation. The
researcher, however, sourced literature describing the relationship between an
individual’s familiarity with the firm (as a result of longer organisational tenure)
and their creativity within the firm. This literature has been used as a basis for
testing procedural effects of organisational tenure with management innovation
sources.
Procedures provide a standardised method of completing work that leads to
repetition and routine. There are two differing views on the relationship between
performing routines in the workplace and creativity. Ohly, Sabine and Plunkte
(2006) argued that routinisation of work releases cognitive capacity for
employees to become creative, whilst Ford and Gioia (2000) argued that
performing repetitive work is creativity inhibiting. Knowledge within a firm is
divided into declarative knowledge (expertise on the facts and principles of a
subject) and procedural knowledge (practical knowledge from practicing
declarative expertise), as posited by Ng and Feldman (2013). Therefore this
study aimed to examine whether declarative and technical knowledge of a firm’s
procedures leads to an individual becoming a source of innovation.
2.3.3.3 Familiarity with individuals within a firm and management
innovation
Ipe (2003) explained that organisational knowledge is created through
interaction between individuals in a firm. The longer an individual is employed in
a firm, the more exposure he or she has to other employees within that firm,
which results in familiarity and exchanges of knowledge with fellow employees.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
19
The sharing and dissemination of knowledge is essential to innovations within
an organisation (Peng, Zhang, Fu & Tan, 2014). Various authors have
motivated that knowledge sharing between individuals in a firm result in positive
outcomes for the firm (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Ipe, 2003). However, Peng
et al. (2014) argued that it is not only the amount of knowledge sharing but also
the quality of the knowledge shared between employees that determine firms’
successes.
2.3.3.4 Familiarity with social networks and management innovation
The longer one is employed in a firm the more time he or she has to incorporate
into the social networks within that firm. There exists a dichotomy in the
literature that was reviewed regarding the relationship of social networks within
a firm and the propensity for innovation. Some researchers have found that
social networks are a hindrance to innovation because they result in
dependence on the knowledge base of the firm and prevent exploratory
knowledge seeking (that could spur creativity) outside the firm (Fleming, Mingo
& Chen, 2007; Wang, Rodan, Fruin & Xu, 2014). Alternatively, other
researchers have found that social networks provide a diverse knowledge base
that result in inventive activities (Phelps, 2010; Rodan, 2010; Rodan & Galunic,
2004). This divergence in the literature as well as the gap in the literature on the
relationship between management innovation and social networks warrants
further investigation.
2.3.4 Innovation momentum as a source of management innovation
Innovation momentum refers to the time periods between each of an
individual’s past instances of creating innovations. Knowledge is the key
determiner of innovation and knowledge is derived from human capital.
Therefore it can be argued that, by implication, individuals who have innovated
in the past will build momentum from their past innovating experiences to
enable future generation of new management principles. It is expected then that
the period of time between an individual’s management innovations will
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
20
decrease the more he/she creates innovations. As far as the researcher found,
there is no literature that determines a relationship between an individual’s past
experiences with management innovation and their propensity to be a source of
management innovation in the future.
Whilst there is a lack from academia to determine the relationship between
management innovation momentum and propensity for future innovation, a
considerable amount of work has been done regarding technological innovation
momentum. This body of knowledge was utilised for this specific research
report. Turner, Mitchell and Bettis (2013) investigated the probability of future
technological innovativeness based on past innovation experiences and found
that past innovation creates momentum for future innovation. Capaldo, Lavie
and Petruzelli (2014) investigated past experience in innovation as a determiner
of the value of future innovations and have found that past innovations have a
curvilinear relationship with innovation value.
The concept of “serial innovators” has been coined in the technological space
and refers to who people who innovate markedly more than others and who
possess certain characteristics that predispose them to being innovative
(Griffin, Price, Maloney, Vojak & Sim, 2009; Mansfield, Holzle & Gemunden,
2009). It can be deduced from this body of work, that if management innovation
is a result of personal characteristics (which is assumed to remain unchanged)
it is likely that an individual who has been a source of management innovation
previously is likely to have a constant rate of innovation due to their set
characteristics, unless there are other environmental factors that influence their
behaviour in the workplace.
2.3.5 Management training as a source of management innovation
Management training can act as a knowledge source from which management
innovations can be created. Birkinshaw and Mol (2006) explained that part of
the process of management innovation generation is gaining inspiration from a
source. This source can be a concept proven in another setting or an unproven
concept. The purpose of training is to teach employees this new concept or
refresh their memory regarding a previously taught lesson for application in the
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
21
workplace. It is therefore logically deduced that management training can be a
source of management innovation.
Two diverging schools of thought were found regarding the effectiveness of
training. One school of thought in the available literature concerning employee
post-training behaviour indicated that employees tend not to retain and use their
lessons from training in the workplace (Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2014;
Velada, Raquel, Cetano, Michel, Lyons & Kavanagh, 2007). Another school of
thought indicated that training lends people to have positive attitudes towards
(technological) innovation (Quasi & Thalukder, 2011).
No empirical evidence could be found in available literature that either supports
or refutes this relationship of management training with management innovation
and was therefore examined in this particular research study.
2.3.6 Educational level as a source of management innovation
Determining the effects of the level of education on an individual’s propensity to
be a source of management innovation is important. This factor is indicative of
the kinds of candidates that are required when there is a desire to introduce
management innovations into companies.
Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) found that firms in the United Kingdom with a more
educated workforce were more likely to produce management innovations. The
authors differentiated their sample into employees with and without degrees.
Quasi and Thalukder (2011) also found a positive relationship between
educational level and attitude towards accepting innovation of a technological
nature. Conversely, Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2012) found the educational level of
an entrepreneur was detrimental to his/her propensity for innovation. The
researchers suggested that formal education systems limited competencies that
drive creativity. The relationship between educational level and the propensity
for management innovation generation was investigated in this research report,
and differs from Mol’ and Birkinshaw’s (2009) study as the sample in this
research was taken from South Africa where the educational system is
significantly different.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
22
2.3.7 Functional role as a source of management innovation
Understanding the relationship between functional role and propensity for
management innovation is important because this knowledge indicates the
affect that assigned roles have on innovation to firm leaders.
From their study in the education industry, Baldridge and Burnham (1975)
claimed that an individual’s role within an organisation affects the likelihood of
him/her being involved in the innovation within the organisation. These
researchers found that people in administrative rather than actual specialist
roles (in the study the specialists were educators) initiated change and partook
in organisational (managerial) activities. If specialists are not exposed to
managerial activities and change, they are unlikely to be involved in
management innovation.
The authors also mentioned that individuals with more authority have more
access to resources, which in turn influences their ability to be involved in the
innovation process. No studies have been found that describes the relationship
of functional role with management innovation propensity in the business. To
provide more information regarding this factor, this relationship was investigated
in this research report.
2.3.8 Gender as a source of management innovation
Both business and academia will benefit from establishing whether there exists
relationship between an individual’s inherent characteristic of gender and
his/her propensity for management innovation. Business leaders can
successfully determine whether their environments are conducive for all
genders, whilst there is a gap to be filled in academic literature.
There are two opposing ideas regarding gender and innovation in the
workplace.
Carrasco (2014) explained that males have historically dominated the
workplace and innovation, thereby crafting an environment that supports a
innovation by men. Carrasco further explained that these male designed
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
23
institutional factors did not support female innovation. Opposing this idea,
Østergaard, Timmermans and Kristinsson (2011) found that gender diversity
(i.e. the inclusion of more women) in the workplace has a positive relationship
with innovation. The latter view is supported by the fact that because the
corporate landscape has been dominated by males since the inception of the
organisation as an institution, the status quo practices and structures of a firm
have indeed been created by men but women would be more likely to innovate
because of the new knowledge and perspectives they would bring to the firm.
Some researchers have found, however, that minority groups in the workplace
(like females in today’s management roles) experience perceived
discrimination, less job satisfaction and therefore they display a lack of
commitment (Milliken & Martins, 1996). All of these negative consequences of
belonging to a minority group could negatively affect a female’s attitude to her
job and/or employer and she could therefore become less likely to want to find
new ways for the firm to improve how it is managed.
The affect that gender has on management innovation in the workplace has not
been determined as far as the researcher has found, and was therefore
investigated in this research report.
2.4 Conclusion
Despite the importance of management innovation, limited literature is available
on the subject. Hamel (2006) argued that firms operate in an ever-changing and
increasingly competitive environment. In order for firms to thrive, they must
change with their environment.
If management innovation is so important, then it becomes critical to determine
the manner in which it can be generated so that firms know where to source
these innovations for their survival. Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) have conducted
the only available study that determined some of the sources of management
innovations. These authors concede that their study was not comprehensive
and subsequently suggested additional factors to be investigated as sources of
management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
24
The researcher’s search of the available literature has not uncovered empirical
evidence that supports or refutes whether an individual’s age, organisational
tenure, total tenure, management innovation momentum, management training,
functional role or gender are sources of management innovation. There are
however, bodies of work that describe the relationship of these variables with
aspects related to innovation. Some of these aspects are creativity, knowledge
and confidence to innovate. In light of this gap in the literature, as well as the
supporting bodies of work that allude to possible associations, these
aforementioned factors were empirically investigated as sources of
management innovation in this research report.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
25
CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESES
The purpose of this research report was to determine whether an individual’s
characteristics predispose him/her to generating management innovations. To
do so, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 1: An individual’s age is associated with him/her being a source of
management innovation.
Hypothesis 2: An individual’s total employment tenure is associated with
him/her being a source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 3: An individual’s organisational tenure is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 4: An individual’s innovation momentum is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 5: An individual’s management training is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 6: An individual’s educational level is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 7: An individual’s functional role is associated with him/her being a
source of management innovation.
Hypothesis 8: An individual’s gender is associated with him/her being a source
of management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
26
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the research methodology that was employed in this
research report.
Research methodology is defined as “a way to systematically solve the
research problem” (Khotari, 2004, p.8). The selected methodology must be
appropriate for the problem being studied. In the case of this research report,
the hypotheses constituted the research problem; therefore the methods of
research were designed to address these. Wilson’s (2014) honeycomb
research methodology model was used as a system for structuring this
research methodology (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Research Methodology Honeycomb (Wilson, 2014, p.8)
4.2 Research philosophy
Due to the natural scientific background and logical approach to knowledge that
the researcher possessed, a critical positivist approach was employed. It is
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
27
acknowledged that a truly positivist (objective) philosophy is never possible
because the researcher is human and subject to human bias constraints;
however the investigative processes for this study leaned significantly more
towards a positivist philosophy than an interpretivist one. The data collection
method illustrated an objective philosophical method (see Section 4.6).
4.3 Research approach
This research report was based on a gap identified in existing literature
concerning the theory of sources of management innovation. As such, eight
hypotheses were formulated and examined. Wilson (2014) described the testing
of hypothesis from existing theory as a deductive approach to the research.
4.4 Research strategy
Drawing from previous studies of existing theories on the characteristics and
management innovation/innovation, eight premises have been logically
constructed (Chapter 3). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) explained that a
quantitative strategy emphasises the measurement and analysis of causal
relationships between variables. This research report investigated eight factors
that may cause management innovation (Figure 5) therefore these were tested
in each of the eight hypotheses using a quantitative research strategy.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
28
Figure 5: Causal relationship being tested in hypotheses
4.5 Research design
The research was a cross-sectional study as the data collected and conclusions
drawn about the sources of management innovation are representative of a
specific point in time. The research report sought to provide a breadth of
findings rather than depth, due to the quantitative nature of the data collection
and the statistical nature of the analysis.
4.6 Sampling design
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of eight predetermined
factors on management innovation. Therefore, the sample comprised of people
of a variety of ages, total tenure, gender, functional roles and educational
levels. In order to achieve this variety, judgment sampling was employed.
Convenience sampling was also employed due to time, geographic and
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
29
resource constraints. The judgement and convenience sampling methods are
non-probability methods that did not provide the researcher equal access to all
samples of the population (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).
4.6.1 Population definition
Cooper and Schindler (2014) described a population as those people that
contain the desired information and can answer the measurement questions.
The population for this study was all people who are procured to perform work
for a firm.
4.6.2 Sample unit definition
A sample unit is “the object being measured, counted or observed with respect
to the random variable under study” (Wegner, 2013, p.5). The sample unit in
this research was a person who has been procured to perform work for a firm.
4.6.3 Sample size
There exists many ‘myths’ about non-probability sample size leading to the use
of rules of thumb (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). However, the parameters that led
to the choice of non-probability sampling were used as a guide for sample size,
i.e.: time constraints, resource constraints and access to sample unit
constraints. Sampling ceased once responses became consistent, thereby
warranting no further sampling. The researcher set a minimum target of fifty
observations.
4.7 Data collection
4.7.1 Data collection instrument
A questionnaire was designed to determine the effect of the eight
predetermined independent variables on an individual’s propensity to create
management innovations.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
30
The questionnaire was compiled by consulting published journals, articles and
textbooks. Cooper and Schindler (2013) explained that a pilot test should be
conducted to detect weaknesses in the data collection instrument. The first and
second drafts of the survey were piloted on five individuals who provided the
researcher with feedback regarding the clarity, logical sequencing and timing of
instrument. The input from pilot participants was used to compile the final
questionnaire.
The final questionnaire consisted of eight questions (Appendix 1). The first six
questions were designed to collect demographic data, whilst the last two
collected data specific to the eight hypotheses outlined in Chapter 3. Question 7
was designed to collect data that detailed the respondents’ history of
management innovation. Question 8 collected interval data specific to
hypotheses one, three, four and five. This specific question used a Likert rating
scale that captured the attitudes and motivations of respondents who had a
propensity for management innovation (Wegner, 2013).
4.7.2 Data gathering
The questionnaire was a self-administered on-line survey using
SurveyMonkey™. This enabled respondents to take the survey at a time that
was convenient for them. The questionnaire did not request the participants’
names to ensure a degree of anonymity.
For convenience sampling, the Masters of Business Administration (MBA)
students, as well as the researcher’s friends, family and acquaintances were
utilised. These channels led to a faster and economic way to achieve
responses. The respondents were contacted via email and social networking
sites (Facebook and LinkedIn). After three months of having the survey
accessible to the potential respondents, a total of 199 observations were
received. The sample size exceeded the fifty envisioned observations.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
31
4.8 Data analysis techniques
Wegner (2013) explained that descriptive statistics is used to organise large
amounts of data so that essential information can be easily extracted.
Descriptive statistics, therefore, was used to understand the demographic
characteristics of the sample data.
4.8.1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to test whether the research instrument
used in Question 8 was reliable. This reliability test generally indicates internal
consistency, which further indicates that the same results will be achieved if the
test were to be repeated. The coefficient is applicable to Likert scale data
(Gliem & Gliem, 2003). Darren and Mallery (2003), as cited in Gliem and Gliem
(2003) stated that a Cronbach’s alpha value lower than 0.6 indicates that the
dataset may not be reliable.
4.8.2 Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis tests are used to determine the accuracy of claims that have
already been established (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).
The single factor ANOVA test was used to test hypotheses one, three and five.
This test indicates whether there is difference in means between category types
that in turn indicate the accuracy of the claim of the association between the
dependent and independent variables (which are the propensity of an individual
to be a source of management innovation and the eight characteristics
respectively).
The Chi Squared (Chi²) hypothesis testing was used to test the accuracy of
independence of association of categorical data. Because the resultant data for
hypotheses two, four, six, seven and eight were categorical in nature, Chi2
testing was used.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
32
Any sample varies from different populations to some degree due to sampling
fluctuations. This variation is accommodated for by using a significance level (𝛼)
(Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The significance level sets the size of the sample
that result in the rejection of the null hypothesis. The significance level was set
at 0.05 for this specific research report.
4.9 Limitations of the research methodology
The following research limitations were acknowledged by the researcher:
• Due to the use of convenience sampling through the researcher’s social
network, the sample contained a large proportion of individuals who had
a higher educational level than secondary school.
• The survey via online questionnaire technique used for data collection
did not allow for the collection of insights or factors further than what is
specified (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).
• Question 7 of the questionnaire required the sample units to access their
memories of historical experiences with innovations. Due to the
comprehensiveness of this task many respondents did not answer this
question and it is also a possibility that this question was not answered
accurately by those who did.
• The multiple-choice nature of some of the questions may not have
catered for unforeseen options. This may have caused some
respondents to skip questions rather than answer them untruthfully.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
33
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
The outcomes from the administered survey are presented in this chapter. The
ultimate question that this research required to be answered was “which of the
eight hypothesised factors are sources of management innovation?” This
chapter commences with a presentation of the demographic data of the
respondents and is followed by the presentation of results in the order of the
hypotheses, as proposed in Chapter 3.
The management innovation survey was administered to the sample set
representing a variety of gender, age, tenure, functional role in firm and
educational level.
The survey resulted in a total of 199 respondents. However one observation
was removed from all analyses as it was perceived to be an outlier. This
respondent displayed an unusually large number of management innovation
activity in relationship to the rest of the respondents. Observations where
respondents omitted data required for specific tests (e.g. their age) were
excluded in those statistical tests. The data was formatted so that it portrayed a
chronological order of innovative events for representative results.
A level of significance of 0.05 was used in the hypothesis testing.
5.2 Respondent characteristics
The following descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of the
respondents who completed the survey.
5.2.1 Age of respondents
The sample of 198 respondents consisted of a representation of people aged
from their early twenties to late fifties, however the data indicated that a majority
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
34
(77%) of the respondents were between their late twenties and late thirties
(Figure 6). The disproportionate representation of people in their twenties and
thirties can be attributed to the convenience sampling methods used to recruit
respondents.
Figure 6: Bar chart of age ranges of the respondents
5.2.2 Gender of respondents
Figure 7 demonstrates that the majority of the respondents to this questionnaire
were male. The proportion of female respondents is fairly representative
considering that the representation of females in the workplace in South Africa
was 45% in 2014 (World Bank, 2014).
2
24
34
19 13
5 2 2
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
<24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 >55
% o
f res
pond
ents
Age intervals (years)
Age distribution of respondents
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
35
Figure 7: Pie chart of gender of respondents
5.2.3 Total working tenure of respondents
The data (Figure 8) illustrates that most (93%) of the respondents had between
three and twenty-three years of working experience. The total tenure of the
respondents is aligned to their age profiles in Figure 6. The disproportionate
nature of the total working tenure of the respondents can be explained by the
convenience sampling method used, which accessed individuals in the
researcher’s immediate network who tend to share similar total working tenure
periods as the researcher. Five of the 198 sample units did not answer this
question.
58%
42%
Gender of respondents
Male Female
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
36
Figure 8: Bar chart of total employment tenure of respondents
5.2.4 Educational level of respondents
Two thirds of the 193 respondents to this question have a postgraduate
qualification, whilst none have an educational level less than secondary school
(Figure 9). This is explained by the convenience sampling method that
accessed a large number of MBA students, most of whom have at least an
undergraduate degree. Five of the survey respondents did not answer this
question.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
% o
f res
pond
ents
Total employment tenure (years)
Total employment tenure distribution
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
37
Figure 9: Pie chart of educational level of respondents
5.2.5 Functional role of respondents
The functional role of the respondents shows a representation of junior and
senior managers as well as specialists (Figure 10). This sample contained a
large number of senior managers and specialists. This response could be
explained by the researcher’s network that was used in the convenience
sample. Six respondents did not answer this question, which may be attributed
to the fact that the three roles specified do not fit these respondents’ job
descriptions.
0%
6%
27%
67%
Highest academic qualification
Primary school Secondary school Undergraduate Postgraduate
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
38
Figure 10: Pie chart of the functional roles of respondents in the workplace
5.2.6 Respondents who have been a source of management innovation
The data illustrates that a vast majority of the respondents (88%) have been a
source of management innovation (Figure 11). This indicates that these
respondents could provide useful data regarding the details of their
management innovation efforts.
Figure 11: Pie chart of respondents who have/ have not been a source of management innovation
20%
44%
35%
Functional role in the workplace
Junior manager Senior manager Specialist
88%
12%
Respondents who have/ have not been a source of management innovation
Yes No
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
39
5.2.7 Management innovation generated after management training
Figure 12 illustrates that the majority (59%) of the respondents’ management
innovations were sourced after having received management training.
Figure 12: Pie chart of management innovations rpoduced with and without management training
5.3 Hypothesis 1
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s age is not associated with
him/her being a source of management innovation. The alternative hypothesis
(H1_a) states that an individual’s age is associated with him/her being a source
of management innovation.
To test this hypothesis a single factor ANOVA test was performed between the
age at which individuals created an innovation and the number of management
innovations created at that age. The data was chronologically ordered to
perform this test. Observations where individuals did not provide their age at the
time of the management innovation were excluded. From the results presented
in Table 1, it can be concluded at the 0.05 level of significance that an
individual’s age has an association with him/her being a source of management
innovation.
41%
59%
Management innovations generated with and without management training
Training
No training
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
40
Table 1: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 1
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 322.329 4 80.582 3.405 0.011 2.442 Within Groups 3052.925 129 23.666 Total 3375.254 133
The results of the single factor ANOVA test are supported by Figure 13 that
expresses that most management innovations are created with increased age.
An exception to this is data points past the age of forty.
To establish whether a linear relationship exists, an individual’s age was plotted
against the number of management innovations they had generated. A very
weak linear relationship exists between the management innovation idea
number and the age at which the individual generated that innovation. The
scatter plot did not significantly fit any other trend type.
Figure 13: Scatter plot of age vs. innovative idea number
The results of the ANOVA test also concur with 76% of respondents who felt
that the older they become, the more likely they are to be a source of
management innovation (Figure 14).
y = 0,0941x - 0,533 R² = 0,10481
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Idea num
ber
Age (years)
Age vs. number of ideas generated
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
41
Figure 14: Bar chart of age as a source of management innovation
The Likert scale responses in Question 8 of the survey were divided into age
ranges to determine whether people in these different age groups had differing
views of the effects of their aging, organisational tenure, innovation momentum
and training on their propensity to be a source of management innovation. The
groups of people were delineated into those in their twenties, thirties and forties.
To test for independence of association, Chi2 hypotheses tests were performed
between these three predetermined age groups and the Likert scale responses
for age, organisational tenure, innovation momentum and management training.
Table 2 summarises the results for the test and confirms that people in these
different age categories do not have significantly differing opinions of the effect
their age and organisational tenure on their propensity to be a source of
3% 6%
10%
40% 41%
2%
11% 14%
44%
28%
2%
10% 13%
44%
31%
3%
9% 12%
43%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Disagree Nor
Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
% re
spon
dent
s Age as a source of management innovation
I feel more comfortable generating new ideas now than I did when I began my career
I feel more comfortable with having change occur in the workplace now than when I began my career
I am more creative with my approach to doing business within the workplace now than when I began my career
Total response for age as a source of management innovation
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
42
management innovation. The results also demonstrate that individuals of these
different age groups do not have the same opinion regarding the effect of their
innovation momentum and training on their propensity to be a source of
management innovation.
Table 2: Chi squared test results for age as a determinant of one's attitude toward age,
organisational tenure, innovation momentum and training as sources of innovation
Factor Cronbach’s alpha
P-value Conclusion
Age 0.776 0.125 Age and age as a source of management innovation are not associated
Organisational tenure
0.804 0.138 Age and age as a source of management innovation are not associated
Innovation momentum
0.767 2.27E-63 Age and innovation momentum as a source of management innovation are associated
Management training
0.921 0.008 Age and innovation management training as a source of management innovation are not associated
5.4 Hypothesis 2
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s total tenure is not
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation. The
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s total tenure is associated
with him/her being a source of management innovation.
To test the hypothesis a Chi2 test was performed on the propensity to create
management innovations and four total tenure ranges, i.e.: 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10
years, 11 to 20 years and 21 to 30 years. The results of the test are displayed in
Table 3 and they indicate that with a 0.05 level of significance an individual’s
total employment tenure is associated with an individual being a source of
management innovation.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
43
Table 3: Summary of Chi squared test results for hypothesis 2
P value Cronbach’s alpha
1.20E-06 0.835
Figure 15 illustrates the distribution of responses to the Likert scale questions in
Question 8 of the survey, arranged by total employment tenure.
Figure 15: Bar chart of respondent’s agreeability to being a source of management innovation by
total tenure.
5.5 Hypothesis 3
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s organisational tenure is not
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation. The
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s organisational tenure is
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
6% 11%
14%
44%
24%
3%
13% 16%
37% 32%
3% 7%
15%
46%
29%
1% 4%
15%
48%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
se
Aggregrate agreeability to being a source of management innovation by total tenure
1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 20 years 21 - 30 years
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
44
To test this hypothesis a single factor ANOVA test was performed between the
organisational tenure at which individuals created an innovation and the number
of management innovations created at that tenure. The data was
chronologically ordered by the researcher. Observations where individuals did
not provide their tenure at the time of the management innovation were
excluded. The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 3
Source of Variat ion SS df MS F P-value F cri t
Between Groups 43.623 4 10.906 0.872 0.483 2.442 Within Groups 1613.190 129 12.505 Total 1656.813 133
At the 0.05 level of significance, the results indicate an individual’s
organisational tenure has no association with an individual being a source of
management innovation. However, the outcomes of Question 8 of the survey
(Figure 16) conflict with the results of the ANOVA test as they show that
respondents tend to support the idea that the longer they are employed in a
firm, the more they are to be a source of management innovation in terms of
social networks, procedural familiarity and knowledge transfer from other
individuals. This difference in results is explained by the possible lack of
accuracy from the respondents’ with recalling instances of past innovations.
This may also be explained by respondents rushing through the question due to
its time demanding nature.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
45
Figure 16: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to organisational tenure being a source of
management innovation.
2%
10%
9%
43%
36%
4%
17%
20%
43%
17%
3%
12%
9%
47%
28%
3%
10%
17%
47%
22%
2%
9%
14%
48%
27%
3%
14%
13%
43%
28%
3%
3%
10%
46%
37%
3%
11%
13%
45%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Agree
Strongly agree
% response
Aggregate agreeability to organisational tenure being a source of management innovation
Total response for organisational tenure as a source of management innovation
The greater exposure I have to the goals of a firm, the more likely I am to generate new ideas within that workplace The longer I am employed in a company, the more comfortable I am with suggesting new ideas within the firm The more I interact with individuals in my workplace, the more those individuals inpsire me to genrate new ideas Familiarity with the social networks within my workplace assists me with generating new ideas Familiarity with the culture of my workplace assists me with generating new ideas Actively using the procedures of a firm in which I am employed assists me with generating new ideas Being familiar with the procedures of a firm in which I am employed assists me with generating new ideas
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
46
5.6 Hypothesis 4
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s innovation momentum is
not associated with him/her being a source of management innovation. The
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s innovation momentum is
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
To test this hypothesis a single factor ANOVA test was performed between the
period of time between an individual’s innovative ideas (“idea gap”) and the
innovation idea number. If the two variables are associated, the idea gap should
change consistently with the increasing idea numbers. The data was
chronologically sequenced for the testing. Observations where individuals did
not provide their age at the time of idea creation were excluded. The results
(Table 5) provide support for the conclusion that, at the 0.05 level of
significance, an individual’s history with management innovation has an
association with him/her being a source of management innovation. The
summary of the survey responses (Figure 17) concur with the ANOVA test as
80% of respondents agree that their management innovation momentum is a
source of innovation.
Table 5: Single factor ANOVA results for hypothesis 4
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 622.961 4 155.740 8.593 3.518E-06 1.989 Within Groups 2337.882 129 18.123 Total 2960.843 133
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
47
Figure 17: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to innovation momentum as a source
of management innovation
5.7 Hypothesis 5
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that receiving management training is not
associated with one being a source of management innovation whilst the
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that receiving management training is
associated with one being a source of management innovation.
1%
10%
15%
44%
30%
2%
9%
13%
44%
32%
2% 4% 5%
38%
52%
1%
8% 11%
42% 38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neither disagree nor
agree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
dent
s Aggregate agreeability to innovation
momentum being a source of management innovation
The frequency with which I look for new ideas has increased through my career
The frequency with which I look for problems to solve within my workplace has increased through my career
I draw on lessons learnt from my past experiences of formulating ideas to assist me in generating future ideas
Total response for innovation momentum as a source of management innovation
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
48
To test this hypothesis a Chi2 test was performed between people who either
did or did not receive management training and while analysing their propensity
for being a source of innovation (the data for propensity for being a source of
management innovation was gained from the results of Question 8 of the
survey) The table below (Table 6) displays the results of the test. It shows that
with a 0.05 level of significance, an individual’s management training is
associated with being a source of management innovation.
Figure 18 illustrates the difference in respondents’ agreeability to being a
source of management innovation by either having received management
training or not. The data used for this graph and the Chi2 test were the
respondents’ answers to age, organisational tenure and innovation momentum
as sources of management innovation in Question 8 of the survey. The
outcomes of the respondents’ responses to the training questions were not
used, as respondents who have not had management training would not have
provided accurate data regarding training. The results demonstrate that people
who have received management training are more likely to either disagree or
strongly disagree with the elements of age, organisational tenure and
innovation momentum being a source of management innovation.
Table 6: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 5
P value Cronbach’s alpha
4.46E-03 0.835
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
49
Figure 18: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to being a source of management innovation by
training
Figure 19 shows respondents’ agreeability to management training as a source
of management innovation. The data illustrated in Figure 19 is only from
respondents who have undergone training because those who have not been
trained cannot give an account of training experience. The data presents that
59% of the respondents concur with the idea that training increases their
propensity for management innovation.
3%
11% 14%
43%
30%
0%
8% 11%
42% 39%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
dent
s Respondent agreeability to being a source of
management innovation by training
Training No Training
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
50
Figure 19: Bar chart of respondents’ agreeability to training as a source of management training
5.8 Hypothesis 6
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s educational level is not
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation. The
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s educational level is
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
To test this hypothesis a Chi2 test was performed between categories of
educational levels and propensity for being a source of management
innovation. The results are presented in Table 7. It can therefore be concluded
6% 8%
29%
35%
23%
7% 8%
28%
33%
24%
4%
8%
25%
43%
20%
6% 8%
28%
37%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neither disagree nor
agree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
dent
s Respondents' agreeability to training as a
source of management innovation
The management training I have recieved has increased my confidence to generate and submit new ideas The management training I have recieved has given me the skills to generate and submit new ideas The management training I have received has given me a positive attitude about generating and submitting new ideas Total response for management training as a source of management innovation
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
51
with a 0.05 level of significance that an individual’s educational level is
associated with being a source of management innovation. Figure 20
summarises the respondents’ agreeability to being a source of management
innovation by educational levels of secondary school, undergraduate and
postgraduate education. The bar chart shows that 69% of people with a
secondary school education concur that they are predisposed to be a source of
management innovation whilst 74% of undergraduate and 70% of
postgraduates concur with this.
Table 7: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 6
P value Cronbach’s alpha
0.04 0.835
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
52
Figure 20: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of management
innovation by educational level.
5.9 Hypothesis 7
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s functional role is not
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation whilst the
alternative hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s functional role is
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
To test this hypothesis, a Chi2 test was performed between an individual’s
functional role and the individual’s propensity to produce a management
innovation (Table 8). Observations where individuals did not provide their
functional role were excluded. From the result, it can be concluded with a 0.05
level of significance that an individual’s functional role is associated with being a
source of management innovation.
1%
8%
22%
48%
21%
4%
9%
13%
43%
31%
5%
9%
15%
41%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
se
Respondent agreeability to being a source of management innovation by educational level
Secondary School Undergraduate Postgraduate
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
53
Table 8: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 7
P value Cronbach’s alpha
4.84E-06 0.835
Figure 21: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of management innovation by functional role.
5.10 Hypothesis 8
The null hypothesis (H1_0) states that an individual’s gender is not associated
with him/her being a source of management innovation. The alternative
hypothesis (H1_a) states that an individual’s gender is associated with him/her
being a source of management innovation.
To test this hypothesis a Chi2 test was performed between gender and the
respondents’ propensity for innovation. The results are presented in Table 9. It
can therefore be concluded at a 0.05 level of significance that an individual’s
gender is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
The largest difference in response is the strongly disagree category, which is
6% for females and 1% for males.
7% 9% 14%
45%
26%
2%
11% 13%
44%
29%
2% 7%
20%
39%
32%
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Strongly disagree
disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
% re
spon
se
Respondent agreeability to being a source of management innovation by functional role
Junior Manager Senior Manager Specialist
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
54
Table 9: Results of Chi squared test for hypothesis 8
P value Cronbach’s alpha
4.55E-09 0.835
Figure 22: Bar chart summarising respondents’ agreeability to being a source of management innovation by gender.
6% 7% 13%
43%
31%
1%
11% 12%
45%
30%
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
% re
spon
se
Respondent agreeability to being a source of management innovation by
gender
Female Male
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
55
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the results of the study and integrates the findings with
the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. The fundamental question that this
research sought to answer was “which of the eight independent variables are
sources of management innovation?” To answer this question, this chapter is
structured according to the order of the listed hypotheses in Chapter 3.
6.2 Hypothesis 1: An individual’s age is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation
The literature review discusses age as a source of management innovation
using change and creativity as a foundational themes. The results for age as a
source of management innovation are discussed in the same manner.
The results achieved for hypothesis 1 provided empirical support for the
assertion that an individual’s age is associated with him/her being a source of
management innovation. The results of the single factor ANOVA test (Table 1)
support the idea that an individual’s age and propensity to be a source of
management innovation are associated.
The self-assessment in Question 8 that was completed by the sample, which is
illustrated in Figure 14, indicates that 76% of the respondents concur with the
assertion that the older they become, the more likely they are to generate
management innovations.
As discussed in Chapter 2, an important foundational factor to innovative
behaviour is being comfortable with change as innovation brings with it “new
combinations”. Seventy-two per-cent of the respondents concurred with the
notion that they have grown more comfortable with change occurring in their
workplace than when they began their careers. The results lend support to the
earlier work of Kunze et al. (2011) where it was found that employee age is
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
56
positively related to ability to change. The work of these authors therefore
provides support for the following assertions regarding older workers:
• They do not find stable and familiar workplace environments more
appealing than their younger counterparts.
• They do not find perceive workplace change as being more stressful than
their younger counterparts.
• They are no more cognitively rigid than their younger counterparts.
Furthermore, it can logically be deduced that because older individuals are
more receptive to change in the workplace, they are more likely (than their
younger counterparts) to initiate the change that is necessary for innovative
behaviour in terms of ways to manage an organisation.
Figure 14 also illustrates that 81% of the respondents were more comfortable
generating new management ideas than they were at the start of their careers.
This indicates that older workers are more likely to be sources of management
innovations than their younger peers. The outcomes of the survey can also be
translated to illuminate the psychological sphere of employees who face
change. Whilst Horn and Cattell (1967) demonstrated that younger adult’s fluid
intelligence enables them to solve new problems more efficiently than older
adults, they also found that older adults better access long-term memory for
problem solving. It is therefore deduced that in the workplace, novel problems
are more often solved with lessons from past experience than with completely
new methods. Considering the fact that Schumpeter (1911) called innovation
“new combinations” and that this study considers innovation as an idea that is
new to the firm (i.e. not completely novel) it is deduced that older employees’
past experience predisposes them to rearranging elements of their memories of
past events in order to perform “new combinations”. These “new combinations”
translate into sources of management innovation.
Horn’s and Cattell’s (1967) psychological theory can also be used to explain the
differences in receptivity to change with age in the technological and
management spheres. Various authors have illustrated the discomfort of older
workers’ attitude to technological change (Davis & Songer, 2009; Morris &
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
57
Venkatesh, 2000; Mostafa & El-Masry, 2008; Young et al., 2001), whilst results
demonstrated the contrary with management innovation. The results of the
current research report support the idea that older workers have a differing
attitude to change to technological and management change. Based on Horn
and Cattell’s (1967) theory, it is suggested that that older workers are more
open to management change in the workplace because they draw on past
experiences as building blocks for management change whilst they may not
have as much experience with technology as their younger counterparts.
The literature that was reviewed emphasises the importance that creativity
plays in innovation and discusses opposing views regarding the relationship
between one’s age and elements of creativity. The results reinforce the idea
that an individual’s creativity regarding methods of management within a firm
increases with age. The data in Figure 14 indicates that 75% of respondents
support this relationship. This substantiates the argument by Quazi and
Thalukder (2011), as well as Eder and Sawyer (2007) that older employees are
unfairly stereotyped as less inventive. These results also provide support to
Timmerman’s (2010) psychological work that explained that the older a person
becomes the more creative they grow due to right brain dominance.
The results, therefore, lend support to the idea that employee creativity in
management increases with age.
This study further tested whether individuals in different age groups have
differing attitudes from one another, regarding age, organisational tenure,
innovation momentum and management training as source of management
innovation. Three different age groups were delineated, namely the
respondents who were in their twenties, thirties and forties. The results in Table
2 provide support that people in these different age groups have similar
opinions regarding the effects that organisational tenure and age have on their
propensity to be a source of management innovations.
The overall results for hypothesis 1 provide credibility to the motion that age is
associated with a person’s propensity to create management innovations.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
58
These results also indicate that people become more likely to be revered as a
source of management innovation with age.
6.3 Hypothesis 2: An individual’s total employment tenure is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
The results supported the assertion that an individual’s employment tenure is
not independent on him/her being a source of management innovation (Table
3). The data was tested by delineating four groups of total employment tenure,
i.e.: 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20 years and 21-30 years. Whilst the majority of
respondents felt that the longer their total working experience was, the more
likely they are to create innovations, most respondents who disagree (24%) and
strongly disagree (9%) with this assertion had less than ten years’ working
experience. Conversely, 14% and 4% of people with more than ten years’
working experience disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively. The data
also evidenced that the category of respondents who concur most with this
motion (79%) are those with tenure of 21 to 30 years.
The outcome of the survey reinforced Ng and Feldman’s (2013) argument that
individuals with a larger working tenure have gained more knowledge due to
being exposed to business and the workplace for a longer time and can call on
that knowledge to innovate.
The overall outcome for hypothesis 2 is that an individual’s total tenure is
associated with him/her being a source of management innovation and that this
relationship is a positive one.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
59
6.4 Hypothesis 3: An individual’s organisational tenure is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation.
The literature that supported hypothesis three had a basis in organisational
culture, firm goals, firm procedures and familiarity with firms’ individuals and
social networks of a firm. The discussion of the results for hypothesis 3 is
discussed in these terms.
The results of the single factor ANOVA test (Table 4) did not corroborate
organisational tenure’s association with an individual being a source of
management innovation. The data used in the ANOVA test was gained from
Question 7 of the survey, which required that the respondent access their
memories of their working experience to provide data. A concern with this is
that if a respondent recalled incorrectly, the dataset from this question could be
inaccurate. This question also required a longer period of time to answer, which
meant that respondents could have rushed through it due to time constraints,
which compromised the data’s accuracy.
The results displayed in Figure 16 demonstrated opposition to those of the
ANOVA test, and rather showed support for hypothesis three. Seventy-three of
the respondents considered the relationship between the two variables to be
positive. Twenty-eight per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that
organisational tenure is a source of management innovation whilst 45% agreed
to this motion. Given the concerns around the data used for the ANOVA test,
the results from the Likert scaled Question 8 were considered as a valid
representation of the respondents and their represented population.
This evidence does not provide support for the claim that routines prevent
employees from challenging status quos as advocated by Khanagha et al.
(2013). In fact, the data supports the claims by Sørensen and Stuart (2000) and
Jimeniz-Jimeniz and Sanz-Valle (2010) that routine promotes the liberation of
cognitive capacity to innovate. It can therefore be deduced that an increased
organisational tenure allows employees’ familiarity with routines within the
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
60
workplace, which in turn liberates the ability for individuals to create
management innovations.
These routines include the standard procedures that firms implement. The
results illustrate that 79% of respondents feel declarative knowledge of
procedures promote their propensity to innovate, whilst 60% deem procedural
knowledge of procedures as helpful in innovating (Figure 16). These outcomes
are contrary to the finding of Ford and Gioia (2000), where repetitive work
inhibits creativity. The research findings lend support to the idea that
routinisation of work by using procedures releases cognitive capacity, which
can then be used for creativity. It can therefore be concluded that both
familiarity with and actively using firm procedures (both of which are expected
to increase with organisational tenure) increases an individual’s propensity of
being a source of management innovation.
Seventy-five percent of respondents concurred that being familiar with the
culture of a firm positively affects their ability to create management
innovations, whilst 69% felt being familiar with firm goals does so (Figure 16).
This can be explained by the fact that understanding an environment and how
to navigate in that setting helps an individual to align the efforts (in creativity)
with the culture and goals of that setting, thereby supporting the work by Ng and
Feldman (2010). These results also support psychology work by Sørensen and
Stuart (2000) and Jimeniz-Jimeniz and Sanz-Valle (2010) because this
familiarity with goals and culture could also release cognitive capacity to be
used on innovation rather than deciphering the environment. It is concluded that
familiarity with firm procedures and goals predispose individuals to being a
source of management innovation.
The results from this study show that 74% of respondents concurred that
interacting with individuals in their workplace increases their propensity for
innovation. The results also supported the findings in studies by various authors
who explained that knowledge is created by the interaction between individuals
in an organisation (Ipe, 2003; Peng et al., 2014). From the research’s results
and literature that was reviewed, it can be deduced that the knowledge created
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
61
by the interaction of individual people within a firm is drawn upon in creating
new ways to organise and co-ordinate activities by management innovators.
The outcomes of the survey supported the claim that familiarity with social
networks, which is expected to increase with organisational tenure, has a
positive effect on an individual’s ability to be a source of management
innovation. The results show that 22% of respondents strongly agree with the
aforementioned positive relationship, whilst 47% agree with it. These figures
provide credibility to the claim by various scholars (Phelps, 2010; Rodan, 2010
and Rohan & Galunic, 2010) who stated that interacting with social networks
result in innovative activities. Just as is the case with interacting with individual
people, exposure to social networks results in knowledge sharing that creates a
knowledge base that can be accessed to create “new combinations” for
managing a firm.
The data garnered from the survey supported the motion that exposure to firms
goals, familiarity with firm goals and culture, the use of firm procedures and
interacting with fellow individual people as well as social networks in the
workplace (all of which are expected to increase with organisational tenure) can
increase an individual’s propensity to create management innovations.
6.5 Hypothesis 4: An individual’s innovation momentum is associated with he/she being a source of management innovation
Both the results from the ANOVA test (Table 5) and the Likert scale Question 8
of the survey supported the motion that an individual’s management innovation
momentum is associated with him/her being a source of management
innovation. Figure 17 summarises the respondents’ agreeability to the motion
that innovation momentum is a source of management innovation and
illustrates that the majority of the respondents concur that their past
experiences with management innovation are sources of management
innovation (42% agree whilst 38% strongly agree).
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
62
Figure 17 also illustrates that people tend to search for more problems to solve
in the workplace and use the knowledge base they have gained from past
experiences by innovating to create new management practices. These
outcomes support Turner et al.’s (2013) findings that past innovation creates
momentum for future innovation.
As outlined in Chapter 2, the purpose of introducing management innovations is
to troubleshoot coordination inadequacies. The results of the quantitative study
(Figure 17) evidenced that individuals who innovate are increasingly analysing
methods to trouble shoot problems in the workplace. This continuous problem-
solving nature predisposes these individuals to searching for “new
combinations” to improve their workplace inefficiencies.
The overall outcome for hypothesis four is that an individual’s management
innovation momentum is associated with him/her becoming a source of
management innovation and this association is positive.
6.6 Hypothesis 5: An individual’s management training is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation
Two sets of results are evident for hypothesis 5. The first is the Chi2 hypothesis
test results support the claim that management training is associated with an
individual being a source of management innovation (Table 6). Figur 19 shows
results from the Likert scaled enquiries in Question 7 of the survey indicate that
this association is positive, i.e.: the more training a management individual
receives, the more they perceive themselves to be confident, more skilled and
more positive about creating management innovations. However, Figure 18
displays that more respondents who have gone through training are less likely
to innovate (14%) than those who have not (8%). Also, a larger proportion of
individuals who have not gone through management training (39%) strongly
agree with being more prone to creating management innovations than those
who have not (30%).
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
63
The results are interpreted to provide information regarding the divergent
schools of thought on the effects of training emphasised in the literature review.
It is extrapolated that respondents may feel that they have gained confidence
skills and a positive attitude to being a source of management innovation but
the lessons learned from training are not always retained (Diamantidis &
Chatzoglou, 2014; Velada et al. 2007) and therefore cannot materialise into a
source of management innovation. Another explanation is that data in Question
7 was used for testing this hypothesis (which is data regarding age,
organisational tenure and innovation momentum) therefore the management
training given tends not to have an affect on these three factors as sources of
management innovation.
The outcome for hypothesis 5 therefore, is that an individual’s training is
associated with management innovation but whilst individuals perceive that they
are more likely to create management innovations with the knowledge gained
from training, this knowledge is often not retained. Therefore individuals who
have not received training are more likely to create such innovations.
6.7 Hypothesis 6: An individual’s educational level is associated with he/she being a source of management innovation
The result from the Chi2 hypothesis test demonstrated support for the claim that
an individual’s educational level is associated with the likelihood to generate
management innovations (Table 7).
Using the results in Figure 20, it is argued that formal education is a finite
source for management innovation. Whilst more undergraduates (74%) feel
prone to create management innovations than high school graduates (69%), the
educational category with most resistance to the hypothesis is postgraduates
(14%). It is deduced from these results that a formal education provides a
workforce with knowledge that they can access to create management
innovations, but once individuals absorb too much formal education, it becomes
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
64
limiting to creating innovations. The results therefore partially support both
opposing views in the literature; Mol and Birkinshaw’s (2009) finding that firms
with a more educated workforce are more likely to produce management
innovations as well as the claim by Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2012) that an
individual’s educational level can be detrimental due to the formality of
educational academics that deter creativity.
6.8 Hypothesis 7: An individual’s functional role is associated with him/her being a source of management innovation
The results for hypothesis 7 in Table 8 provided empirical support for the
statement that an individual’s functional role is associated with that person
being a source of management innovation.
The outcomes presented in Figure 21 are contrary to the study by Baldridge
and Burnham (1975). The functional role category with the largest resistance to
feeling they are likely to produce management innovations is junior managers
(16%) followed by senior managers (13%). It must be noted however that these
scholars referred to the entire innovative process and not just to being sources
for management innovation. This indicates that specialists are sufficiently
exposed to managerial activities and change that allows them to be sources of
management innovations, but this may not be the case for implementing those
innovations.
The results provide support for the claim that authority, as a result of the
hierarchical structure within a firm, is not a factor that inhibits people to create
new ways to manage a firm but may rather be a factor in the implementation
thereof.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
65
6.9 Hypothesis 8: An individual’s gender is associated with he/she being a source of management innovation
The results achieved for hypothesis eight provide empirical support for the
assertion that an individual’s gender is associated with him/her being a source
of management innovation (Table 9).
Figure 22 indicates that more females (6%) than males (1%) strongly disagree
that they are predisposed to management innovation creation.
This supports the claim by Carrasco (2014) that there are institutional factors
that do not lend themselves to innovation by women. So whilst women may
have different perspectives from the traditional corporate landscape that could
lend them to being a greater source of innovation than men, they can be
discouraged from suggesting their ideas because of fear of discrimination,
especially when they consider suggesting something new (Milliken & Martins,
1996).
6.10 Concerns with the dataset
Question 7 of the survey required respondents to access their memories of their
careers because the questionnaire required historical data of past experiences
of management innovation. This question was time consuming for the
respondents. If the respondents recalled their experiences inaccurately, or if
they rushed through the question due to time constraints, the dataset that was
derived from this question could not be representative.
6.11 Conclusion
The results of the quantitative research process demonstrated the relationship
that an individual’s age, total tenure, organisational tenure, innovation
momentum and educational level effects how he/she accesses and uses
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
66
knowledge, which is in turn used for creating management innovations. All
these aforementioned factors predispose an individual to being a source of
management innovation. It was found that receiving management innovation
training does not make one more prone to being a source of management
innovation, although the recipient may perceive it to be. It was also found that
an employee’s functional role and gender is a source of management
innovation due to workplace environmental factors.
Figure 23: Model summarising findings
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
67
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
7.1 Introduction
This research has explored the sources of innovative methods for a firm to be
managed. This final chapter provides a summary of the pertinent findings from
this research report, along with recommendations to stakeholders. The chapter
concludes by listing the limitations of the study and provides suggestions for
future research.
7.2 Summary of findings
A longer period of exposure to the business environment or workplace
increases an individual’s propensity to create management innovations. As an
individual’s age, employment tenure, organisational tenure and innovation
momentum increase, it lends him/her to being exposed to the workplace for a
longer period of time. It was confirmed in Chapter 6 that an individual’s age,
total employment tenure and organisational tenure increase his/her ability to be
a source of management innovation. This is because the innovating of
organising activities within a firm is driven by knowledge of the environment.
Larger knowledge of an environment comes with time and exposure to the
elements of that setting. Management innovators tend to access their long-term
memories and experiences to create “new combinations” to generate new ways
to manage.
These findings demonstrate that older workers are no more cognitively rigid or
averse to change than their younger counterparts in terms of management
creativity. Firms’ standard procedures improve individuals’ abilities to create
management innovations because these release cognitive resources that can
be used in the creative process.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
68
Individuals’ knowledge bases also tend to increase with interactions with other
individuals and social networks in their workplace. These interactions allow
exposure to new knowledge that can be used in innovations.
The idea that management innovators use experience to innovate is also
supported by the result that management innovation propensity increases with
an individual’s past experience in creating innovations. Again, the innovator’s
history with innovation is used as a knowledge base for creating new
combinations.
The research also found that individuals without management training are more
likely to innovate than those who have had training. People who receive the
training gain confidence in the fact that they may be able to use their training for
innovating but it is possible that they do not retain the skills learned in training.
An individual’s educational level is interpreted to have an effect on the ability to
produce management innovations. An individual will be more innovative up to a
certain level of education, beyond which the formal and rigid nature of formal
education systems becomes a hindrance to creative abilities.
The final finding of this research is that an individual’s gender and functional
roles are associated with him/her creating management innovation. The primary
reason for this is because the business environment affects individuals in
varying functional roles and gender differently. Women are more unlikely to
create management innovations than males, which is often interpreted as a
result of females being a minority group in the workplace where they perceive
that new ideas they produce may not be accepted due to their minority status
and/or due to a business environment that is more conducive to male creativity.
7.3 Academic implications
The results and findings in this study contribute to the existing body of literature
regarding the determining of management innovation and its sources.
This is the only study (known to the researcher) that establishes the existence
of an association between an individual’s age, total employment tenure,
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
69
organisational tenure, management innovation momentum, functional role and
gender with his/her propensity to create new management combinations.
This research developed the initial study by Mol and Birkinshaw (2009) who
investigated internal and external organisational sources of management
innovation. The findings of this study extend the study of Mol and Birkinshaw
(2009) by focussing on an individual’s propensity for innovation rather than an
organisation’s.
This research also expands the understanding of organisational behaviour and
industrial psychology by providing inferred insight into the psychological
determiners of management innovation within the workplace.
7.4 Recommendations for business
As a result of the findings of this study, the following points are recommended
to the stakeholders:
• In order to foster and benefit from sources of management innovation,
firm leaders should recognise experienced workers as bodies of
knowledge from whom the rest of the firm can learn. More experienced
workers should also be actively accessed for wisdom regarding new
methods of firm management.
• Employees should be aware of and actively use their knowledge and
networks base to create innovations for management.
• Both employers and employees must be aware of and address the
reasons for more women (than men) feeling strongly against their
likelihood to produce management innovations. This will allow for a more
inclusive workplace that in turn results in a more innovative culture that
can benefit the firm.
7.5 Limitations of the study
The research had the following limitations:
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
70
• The research could benefit from a larger sample and from a random
sampling method that would result in a more representative sample set.
• Respondents could have experienced confusion regarding the nuances
of the term “sources of management innovation”.
• Question 7 required respondents to access their memory of
management innovation creation. If the respondent could not remember
a detail, they might have provided incorrect data.
• Question 8 of the questionnaire was based on a self-assessment
regarding innovation. A peer or supervisor assessment could produce
less biased results.
7.6 Suggestions for future research
The following items constitute suggestions for future research:
• There are limited studies available that explore the possible sources of
management innovation. This study too, is not exploratory and has used
existing literature as a foundation for building hypotheses of possible
sources. It is therefore suggested that the best way to discover pertinent
sources of innovation is to perform an exploratory study by conducting
interviews.
• The factors identified have been studied as a source of management
innovation and not provide enablers for the entire innovation process. It
would be beneficial to investigate this further, so that there is a complete
tangible solution for the sourcing and implementation of innovations.
• The study can be administered to a larger audience using random
sampling methods to achieve a better representation of the population.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
71
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and
rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586-612.
Almeida, P., Hohberger, J., & Parada, P. (2011). Individual scientific
collaborations and firm-level innovation. Industrial and corporate
Change, dtr030.
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes
in organizational learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of
Management Studies, 37(6), 797-810.
Audretsch, B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity.
Oxford review of economic policy, 14(2), 18-29.
Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual,
organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative science
quarterly, 165-176.
Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research
Policy, 27(5), 525-540.
Barberá-Tomás, D., & Consoli, D. (2012). Whatever works: Uncertainty and
technological hybrids in medical innovation. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 79(5), 932-948.
Baye, M. R., & Prince, J. T. (2014). Managerial Economics and Business
Strategy (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education.
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Niessen, C. (2008). Age and creativity at work: The
interplay between job resources, age and idea creativity. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23(4), 438-457.
Birkinshaw, J. M., & Mol, M. J. (2006). How management innovation happens.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4), 81-88.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
72
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E.
(2012). The entrepreneur and innovation in creative firms. International
Small Business Journal, 30(5), 513-535.
Capaldo, A., Lavie, D., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2014). Knowledge Maturity and the
Scientific Value of Innovations: The Roles of Knowledge Distance and
Adoption. Journal of Management.
Carrasco, I. (2014). Gender gap in innovation: an institutionalist explanation.
Management Decision, 52(2), 410-424.
Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation
systems: a panel co-integration analysis of the coevolution between
innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3),
579-594.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the
industrial enterprise: MIT Cambridge, MA Press.
Chiu, W. C., Chan, A. W., Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2001). Age stereotypes
and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West
comparison. Human relations, 54(5), 629-661.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size
and market competition on product and process innovations. British
Journal of Management, 21(4), 996-1010.
Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions,
processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review,
8(2), 423-454.
Damanpour, F., & Daniel Wischnevsky, J. (2006). Research on innovation in
organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
73
adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 23(4), 269-291.
Darren, G., & Mallery, P. (1999). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A simple
guide and reference: Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Davis, K., & Songer, A. D. (2008). Resistance to IT change in the AEC industry:
an individual assessment tool. Construction Management Faculty
Publications And Presentations, 1.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 1-28.
Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. D. (2014). Employee post‐training
behaviour and performance: evaluating the results of the training
process. International Journal of Training and Development. 18(3), 149-
170.
Doh, J. P., Smith, R. R., Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon Jr, W. G. (2011). Pride and
professionals: retaining talent in emerging economies. Journal of
Business Strategy, 32(5), 35-42.
Drucker, P. (2013). People and performance: Routledge.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Concept of the Corporation: Transaction Publishers.
Eder, P., & Sawyer, J. E. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of employee
creativity. Paper presented at the 22nd annual conference, Society Of
Industrial And Organizational Psychology (SIOP)
Entrialgo, M. (2002). The impact of the alignment of strategy and managerial
characteristics on Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 40(3), 260-270.
Farndale, E., Pai, A., Sparrow, P., & Scullion, H. (2014). Balancing individual
and organizational goals in global talent management: A mutual-benefits
perspective. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 204-214.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
74
Fayol, H. (1916). Administration Industrielle et Générale, Dunod: Paris.
Feigenbaum, A. V., & Feigenbaum, D. S. (2005). What quality means today.
Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 96.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative
creativity, and creative success. Administrative science quarterly, 52(3),
443-475.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of
managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26(4), 705-732.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales.
Griffin, A., Price, R. L., Maloney, M. M., Vojak, B. A., & Sim, E. W. (2009).
Voices from the field: How exceptional electronic industrial innovators
innovate. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 222-240.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological
success and the path with a heart. The career is dead–long live the
career, 15-45.
Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard
business review, 84(2), 72.
Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard business review,
87(2), 91-98.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized
intelligence. Acta psychologica, 26, 107-129.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework.
Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational
learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-
417.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
75
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public
employee motivation. Review of public personnel administration, 18(4),
18-37.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Sidhu, J., & Oshri, I. (2013). Management
innovation and adoption of emerging technologies: The case of cloud
computing. European Management Review, 10(1), 51-67.
Koontz, H. (1961). The management theory jungle. Academy of Management
Journal, 4(3), 174-188.
Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and
board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management
Journal, 27(11), 1081-1099.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques: New
Age International.
Kunze, F., Böhm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination
climate and performance consequences—a cross organizational study.
Journal of organizational behavior, 32(2), 264-290.
Luk, C.-L., Yau, O. H., Sin, L. Y., Tse, A. C., Chow, R. P., & Lee, J. S. (2008).
The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in
different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies,
39(4), 589-612.
Luthra, V. (2014). Business Dictionary. Retrieved 21 June 2014, 2014
Manfreda, A., Kovačič, A., Štemberger, M. I., & Trkman, P. (2014). Absorptive
Capacity as a Precondition for Business Process Improvement. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 54(2), 35-43.
Mansfeld, M. N., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2010). Personal
characteristics of innovators—an empirical study of roles in innovation
management. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(06),
1129-1147.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
76
Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard business
review, 88(5), 54-61.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups.
Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation:
When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business
Research, 62(12), 1269-1280.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption
decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel
psychology, 53(2), 375-403.
Mostafa, M. M., & El-Masry, A. (2008). Perceived barriers to organizational
creativity: a cross-cultural study of British and Egyptian future marketing
managers. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1),
81-93.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Organizational tenure and job
performance. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1220-1250.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). A meta‐analysis of the relationships of
age and tenure with innovation‐related behaviour. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 86(4), 585-616.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work
characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive
behaviors. Journal of organizational behavior, 27(3), 257-279.
Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different
view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on
innovation. Research Policy, 40(3), 500-509.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2014). Retrieved 23 June 2014, 2014
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
77
Peng, J., Zhang, G., Fu, Z., & Tan, Y. An empirical investigation on
organizational innovation and individual creativity. Information Systems
and e-Business Management, 1-25.
Phelps, C. C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network
structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(4), 890-913.
Pistor, K. (2013). A legal theory of finance. Journal of Comparative Economics,
41(2), 315-330.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Notions. Harvard business
review.
Prahalad, C. (2012). Bottom of the Pyramid as a Source of Breakthrough
Innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6-12.
Quazi, A., & Talukder, M. (2011). Demographic Determinants of Adoption of
Technological Innovation. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
52(1).
Rodan, S. (2010). Structural holes and managerial performance: Identifying the
underlying mechanisms. Social Networks, 32(3), 168-179.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: how knowledge
heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness.
Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541-562.
Ryan, J. C., & Tipu, S. A. (2013). Leadership effects on innovation propensity: A
two-factor full range leadership model. Journal of Business Research,
66(10), 2116-2129.
Schmidpeter, R. (2013). Social Innovation: A New Concept for a Sustainable
Future? Social Innovation (pp. 1-9): Springer.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
78
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into
profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55):
Transaction Publishers.
Shenkar, O. (2010). Defend your research: Imitation is more valuable than
innovation. Harvard business review, 28.
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and
organizational innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 45(1), 81-
112.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long
range planning, 43(2), 172-194.
The World Bank. (2015). Labour force participation rate, female. Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Research and
Training Center on Community Living, 1-21.
Turner, S. F., Mitchell, W., & Bettis, R. A. (2013). Strategic Momentum How
Experience Shapes Temporal Consistency of Ongoing Innovation.
Journal of Management, 39(7), 1855-1890.
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2012).
Management innovation and leadership: the moderating role of
organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28-51.
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H., & Collings, D. (2012). Talent management decision
making. Management Decision, 50(5), 925-941.
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D., & Kavanagh, M. J. (2007).
The effects of training design, individual characteristics and work
environment on transfer of training. International Journal of Training and
Development, 11(4), 282-294.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
79
Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2010). Management innovation
and organizational performance: the mediating effect of performance
management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
43.
Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. (2013). Knowledge networks,
collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of
Management Journal, 2011-0917.
Wegner, T. (2013). Applied Business Statistics. Cape Town: Juta & Company
Ltd.
Wilson, J. (2014). Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your
research project: Sage.
Wren, D. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). The evolution of management thought.
Wu, L.-Y. (2010). Which companies should implement management
innovation? A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 63(3),
321-323.
Young, G. J., Charns, M. P., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and
network effects on the adoption of innovative management practices: a
study of TQM in a public hospital system. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(10), 935-951.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., Filipczak, B., & Association, A. M. (2000). Generations
at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
your workplace: Amacom New York.
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
80
Appendix 1
SURVEY
Welcome to my survey
Dear Participant,
As part of the MBA programme at the University of Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of
Business Science (GIBS), I am conducting research on past experience as a
source of management innovation. The questionnaire should not take more
than 20 minutes and will help us understand whether past experience is drawn
upon for generating new ideas on how to manage a firm. Your participation is
voluntary and you can withdraw at any time without penalty. Of course, all data
will be kept confidential. By completing the survey, you indicate that you
voluntarily participate in this research. If you have any concerns, please contact
me or my supervisor. Our details are provided below.
Researcher Name: Yomeshka Singh (nee Moodley)
Email: [email protected]
Telephone number: 071 239 5176
Research Supervisor Name: Matthew Birtch
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 011 771 4355
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
81
Demographic data
Please indicate the following details about yourself:
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Total duration of working experience (years)
4. Highest academic qualification
5. Current position (last position if currently unemployed)
� � njJunior manager
� � njSenior manager n
lSpecialist
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
82
Idea Creation
6. Have you ever submitted an idea (whether written or verbal, implemented or
not) to your current or previous employer that was new to the firm and could
translate into a financial or operational improvement for the firm? This idea
would change the way your firm does ANY of the following;
• Motivates and aligns effort
• Coordinates and controls activities
• Accumulates and allocates resources
• Acquires and applies knowledge
• Builds and nurtures relationships
• Identifies and develops talent
• Understands and balances the demands of stakeholders
njYes nkjNo
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
83
7. Please indicate the details of ALL the idea/s (referred to in the previous
question) AT THE TIME you submitted the idea to your employer:
Page 4
Management InnovationManagement InnovationManagement InnovationManagement Innovation
7. Please indicate the details of ALL the idea/s (reffered to in the previous question) AT
THE TIME you submitted the idea to your employer:
Tell us more about these ideas
*
Your ageYour tenure at the firm
(years)
Did you have formal
management training?Industry
This idea would change
the way the firm
Idea 1
Idea 2
Idea 3
Idea 4
Idea 5
Idea 6
Idea 7
Idea 8
Idea 9
Idea 10
Idea 11
Idea 12
Idea 13
Idea 14
Idea 15
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.
84
8. Evaluate the following statements in relation to the ideas you've listed in the
previous question.
Thank you for completing this survey, your time is appreciated!
Page 5
Management InnovationManagement InnovationManagement InnovationManagement Innovation
8. Evaluate the following statements in relation to the ideas you've listed in the previous
question.
Do you agree with these statements?
Strongly
DisagreeDisagree
Neither Disagree
Nor AgreeAgree Strongly Agree
I feel more comfortable generating new ideas now than I
did when I began my career
I feel more comfortable with having change occur in the
workplace now than when I began my career
I am more creative with my approach to doing business
within the workplace now than when I began my career
Being familiar with the procedures of a firm in which I
am employed assists me with generating new ideas
Actively using the procedures of a firm in which I am
employed assists me with generating new ideas
Familiarity with the culture of my workplace assists me
with generating new ideas
Familiarity with the social networks within my workplace
assists me with generating new ideas
The more I interact with individuals in my workplace, the
more those individuals inpsire me to genrate new ideas
The longer I am employed in a company, the more
comfortable I am with suggesting new ideas within the
firm
The greater exposure I have to the goals of a firm, the
more likely I am to generate new ideas within that
workplace
The frequency with which I look for new ideas has
increased through my career
The frequency with which I look for problems to solve
within my workplace has increased through my career
I draw on lessons learnt from my past experiences of
formulating ideas to assist me in generating future ideas
The management training I have recieved has increased
my confidence to generate and submit new ideas
The management training I have recieved has given me
the skills to generate and submit new ideas
The management training I have received has given me
a positive attitude about generating and submitting new
ideas
© 2014 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria.